BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 01:09 PM

Rag,
There is clearly a desire in the report to have anti-Semitism treated in a different way to other racism, to separate anti-Semitism from other racism.

If you read the previous sentences, you will see what they mean.
Either way, I had no part in formulating the report.

Steve, all I know is that Shah is a member of the committee and the acting chair said it "was agreed unanimously and without division by the Committee's Members, across the parties. "

Jim,
This affair has been instigated by Israel -

Complete bollocks Jim! All the accusations came from within Labour.

anybody sympathetic to that regime should be treated with suspicion and regarded as biased

No Labour MP is sympathetic to the current Right Wing regime.

The Israeli regime are not only allowed to attack a respectable and compassionate British Party, but now they are allowed to influence Parliamentary inquiries.

Your delusional conspiracy theories suggest you are completely deranged Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 01:05 PM

But, thank God, it hasn't allowed Bubo.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 12:44 PM

There's no hope for Howard Jacobson either. Just as wrong-headed as you and Keith. Who will you think of next? By the way, don't go thinking that the fact he's in the Guardian in any way legitimises him. The Guardian fearlessly allows commentators from all parts of the spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 12:08 PM

British author Howard Jacobson on Anti-Semitism and the Labour party

To the question posed by the parliamentary committee last week, as to whether Shami Chakrabarti's soft inquiry into antisemitism in the Labour party was a whitewash for which Corbyn brazenly rewarded her with a peerage, or evidence of a deep-seated reluctance to take the subject seriously, there is unlikely to be a satisfactory answer.

Where people are convinced of their own rectitude – and Corbyn and Chakrabarti belong to the more un-self-questioning wing of British politics – there is no separating what they know from what they don't want to know.

The Chakrabarti inquiry didn't fail, it was stillborn. Corbyn has always defended himself against the charge of antisemitism by protesting his freedom from all racisms – an insistence that feels like an evasion and blurs a crucial distinction – and the moment Chakrabarti widened the terms of her inquiry likewise, there was no hope for it.

The Guardian

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 06:29 AM

By the way
You also name Chuka Umanna
These, from a statement from 'Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods' entitled, "Its Kosher to Boycott Israel;i Goods"
This whole enquirt was formed of Anti- Corbynite, Pro Israeli mmbers
Jim Carroll

CHUKA UMUNNA SILENT AS LABOUR JEWS CONDEMN HIS ANTISEMITISM SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Posted on 12 July 2016 by jews4big | Leave a comment
Last weekend more than 40 Jewish members of Labour Party organisations around the UK wrote to MP Chuka Umunna condemning his cynical deployment of antisemitism allegations as part of the witch hunt against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and other supporters of justice for Palestine.
Umunna has not deigned to respond. But the statement put out by Free Speech on Israel, which organised the letter, still merits attention.

LABOUR JEWS CONDEMN UMUNNA'S ANTISEMITISM SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Umunna accused of "weaponising false accusations of antisemitism"
Public grilling of Corbyn part of "internal vendetta"
Smear campaign detracts from combatting racism
July 9 – Jewish members of the Labour Party have condemned Chuka Umunna MP for using false allegations of antisemitism to attack Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters in the Momentum group.
In an open letter to the MP for Streatham, a former Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, more than 40 members of party organisations all over the country say:
"We were shocked to witness the cynical manner in which you weaponised false allegations of antisemitism to launch an attack on the leader of the Labour party and on Momentum at the session of the Home Affairs Committee on Monday July 4th."
They accuse him of pursuing "an internal Labour Party vendetta in a public forum", cynically drawing attention away from important recommendations, contained in a recently published report by former Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti, on making the party more effective in combatting all forms of racism including antisemitism.
The letter urges Umunna to "concentrate your considerable energy on working to unite the Party so that we can displace this destructive Tory Government as soon as possible."
Free Speech on Israel (FSOI) is a network of labour movement, Green and trade union activists in the UK, mainly Jewish, who came together in April 2016 to counter attempts by pro-Israel right wingers to brand the campaign for justice for Palestinians as antisemitic. It broadly supports the conclusions of the Charabarti inquiry into antisemism and other forms of racism, to which it made this submission.
FSOI draws its support from members of the following Jewish groups:
Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP)    http://jfjfp.com/
Independent Jewish Voices (IJV)    http://ijv.org.uk/
Jewish Socialist Group (JSG)    http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN-UK)    http://www.ijan.org/
Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (J-BIG)    https://jews4big.wordpress.com/
Jewdas/Young Jewish Left    http://jewdas.org/

Dear Chuka Umunna,
We write as Jews who are members of the Labour Party. Some of us are also members of Momentum. We were shocked to witness the cynical manner in which you weaponised false allegations of antisemitism to launch an attack on the leader of the Labour party and on Momentum at the session of the Home Affairs Committee on Monday July 4th.
Some of the comments made at the press conference launching the Chakrabarti inquiry on June 30 by Mr Wadsworth (not a representative of Momentum as you claimed) were rude and unwarranted, however there is no evidence they were motivated by antisemitism. Wadsworth was clearly angry that the Daily Telegraph journalist had shared one of his leaflets with Labour MP Ruth Smeeth. He makes no reference to Ms Smeeth's religion and asserts he had no knowledge she was Jewish and there is no evidence that this is not true. We have searched assiduously, including scrutinising the video footage of the incident, but have found no evidence of antisemitism, as opposed to incivility, in his words or actions.
The questions about Mr Wadsworth had been asked and answered several times by the time you asked your questions. Quite evidently your questions were not designed to elicit information but to pursue an internal Labour Party vendetta in a public forum. This relentless concentration on a confection designed to damage the Labour Party inhibits proper discussion on an important report into how the Labour Party can be more effective in combatting all forms of racism including antisemitism.
In your questioning you repeatedly employed guilt by association. For instance, you made reference to David Watson's case. This is still under investigation and, as your legal background should have informed you, the allegations against him currently remain untested and unproven. These are allegations that, had you performed due diligence before asking your questions, you would have known are based on flimsy, if not fabricated, evidence.
We have been quite unable to detect any hint of animosity towards Jews in any of Watson's social media posts. His critique of Zionism is one that many Jews share, in particular that the political Zionism dominant in Israel today is a racist ideology, both discriminating against Palestinians and stereotyping Jews as incapable of living alongside non-Jews in diverse societies. To then suggest that anyone who shares a platform with Watson is implicitly condoning antisemitism, and further that Jeremy Corbyn is answerable for all events organised by Momentum, is absurd.
You cite the example of the Oxford University Labour Club, and claim that "time and time again in these incidents of activity" in which offence is caused "to and against Jewish people Momentum seems to pop up quite frequently". Yet Baroness Royall found no evidence of institutional antisemitism in OULC, and reported on at least one case of serious false allegations of antisemitism which had been reported to the police.
We ask you to cease your relentless undermining of the Labour Party. It would be more appropriate for you to concentrate your considerable energy on working to unite the Party so that we can displace this destructive Tory Government as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM

"So what? People do not leave and join according to the government in power there. It is not a political organisation in that sense."
This affair has been instigated by Israel - anybody sympathetic to that regime should be treated with suspicion and regarded as biased - the whole panel was made up of anti-Corbybinites anyway.
Th whole thing was rigged and we still don't don know what this "NEW RACISM" that Labour has been accused of so we have to assume that it is the Israeli "JUSTICE" (sic) Minister's "criticism of Israel".
The Israeli regime are not only allowed to attack a respectable and compassionate British Party, but now they are allowed to influence Parliamentary inquiries.
There goes the neighborhood - in a big way!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 06:02 AM

That says to me that you did not read my verbatim quote from the minutes of the meeting which listed the signatories. Naz was not among them. So what do you think happpened, Keith? That they tidied up the loose ends then gave Naz a quick bell, Naz who had nothing to do with the proceedings, to ask if she agreed to the report? What on earth is the matter with you, Keith? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 05:44 AM

Your quote stated clearly and categorically that:

"Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, AND HIS RELUCTANCE TO SEPARATE ANTI-SEMITISM FROM OTHER FORMS OF RACISM, has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people"

There is clearly a desire in the report to have anti-Semitism treated in a different way to other racism, to separate anti-Semitism from other racism.

That is quite obvious from YOUR quote above.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 05:06 AM

Steve,
So, Keith, let's drop the bullshit. Did Naz Shah endorse that report or not? Actively, in person, etc.? Put her moniker to it? Yes or no, Keith?

All I know is that she is a member of the committee and the acting chair said it "was agreed unanimously and without division by the Committee's Members, across the parties. "

What does that say to you Steve?

Jim,
she and her husband, Ed Balls are members of 'Friends of Israel',

So what? People do not leave and join according to the government in power there. It is not a political organisation in that sense.

The article you linked to stated that she was like Ed Miliband who "took the right approach to the problem: with regards to Israel, he rightly showed criticism of the Israeli government and marked the distinction between the country and the government who runs it."

Remember Jim?

she should not have been part of any decision making on this matter.

She was not. She certainly had nothing to do with the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Oct 16 - 04:22 AM

"So she is not "yet another supporter of the Israeli regime" "
She and her husband, Ed Balls are members of 'Friends of Israel', have attended their events and have spoken for them - that is the support I was referring to.
She has a direct interest in Israel and cannot in any way be described as neutral on the topic - she should not have been part of any decision making on this matter.
YoU talk about the Chakrabatti enquiry being flawed - given the makeup of this one, the result was a forgone conclusion before it started.
And we still don't know what this "NEW RACISM" Labour is accused of is.
]Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 05:04 PM

So, Keith, let's drop the bullshit. Did Naz Shah endorse that report or not? Actively, in person, etc.? Put her moniker to it? Yes or no, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:07 PM

Jim, completing your quote,
" Her standpoint was more or less the closest to that of Ed Miliband.
The above underpins how much distrust between Labour (and particularly its left) and the Jewish Community exists at the moment. Ed Miliband took the right approach to the problem: with regards to Israel, he rightly showed criticism of the Israeli government and marked the distinction between the country and the government who runs it.

So she is not "yet another supporter of the Israeli regime" and you have provided no evidence that any other Labour member is.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:00 PM

Steve,
So let's see. She didn't go to the meetings that worked on the report, but she popped her head round the door just as they were voting and shouted "Yeah, whatevvah you're on about, I'll endorse it!"   

I assumed that she read it Steve. Why ever would you assume that she did not?
Tim Loughton MP, Acting Chair of the Committee, said:
"It is symbolic of the importance of this deeply felt issue that, despite the contentious, political nature of much of the debate, this report — which does not pull its punches — was agreed unanimously and without division by the Committee's Members, across the parties.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/antisemitism-report-published-16-17/

Shah was and is a committee member.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 03:54 PM

"No. The "issue" was and is Labour anti-Semitism."
Prove it Keith

Certainly. Here are the quotes again.

"The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. Anti-Semitism has no place in the Labour Party and is contrary to everything we stand for. "

"... anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue and is committed to addressing all the issues raised by these inquiries."
http://labourlist.org/2016/05/alice-perrys-nec-report-corbyn-fighting-prejudice-and-listening-to-voters-online/

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 03:47 PM

Rag,
Yes you have quoted a report professor but you haven't told us why anti-Semitism should be considered different from any other racism.

I keep telling you that I do not think it should be considered differently, unlike you Rag.

Are you suggesting that some racism is acceptable but anti-Semitism is not.

Of course not, and neither did the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 08:56 AM

"Yvette Cooper MP was elected as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee on Wednesday 19 October 2016."
Yvette Cooper is yet another supporter of the Israeli regime - how much proof do we need that this is an Israeli stunt Keith
"As opposed, Yvette Cooper presented pro-Israel and pro-peace stances at the same time, showing serious commitment to the latter. Unlike others, she dared to speak the truth on both issues, i.e. the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum and Anti-Semitism. Most importantly, she praised the work of CST (Community Security Trust, NDR), a charity which provides security for Jewish areas across Britain. Her standpoint was more or less the closest to that of Ed Miliband."
"The right stance is Yvette Cooper's"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 07:22 AM

And I just ruined that bloody joke by leaving a bit out. I blame Naz Shah, the whole of the NEC, Ruth Smeeth, Chakrabarti, the bloody EUMC, AIPAC, Blair..

Oh sorry, Teribus. I forgot. Everything's Maggie's fault!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 06:02 AM

"Shah did not work on the report, but as a member of the committee she endorsed its findings."

So let's see. She didn't go to the meetings that worked on the report, but she popped her head round the door just as they were voting and shouted "Yeah, whatevvah you're on about, I'll endorse it!"   

When Keith were a little lad, he told his mates that he wanted to be a comedian. Well, as we can see, he made it, but they're not laughing now.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 05:50 AM

"No. The "issue" was and is Labour anti-Semitism."
Prove it Keith
You can do it easily by producing the examples of that Anitsemitism instead of yyour antisemitic claim that all the Jews in the Labour Party have kept silent about it
WHAT IS THIS ****** ANTISEMITISM YOU ARE CAINING IS RIFE IN TH LABOUR PARTY _ WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF IT?
The only genuine antisemitism to have emerged in this affair is your 'Jewish Plot'
Why should anybody take notice of somebody wh#o would make such an accusation - or the mates who back him up?
Until you produce it, it is as real as The Loch Ness Monster - go count the numbe of people who have sen that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 05:04 AM

Yes you have quoted a report professor but you haven't told us why anti-Semitism should be considered different from any other racism.

Most people, yourself excluded of course, find any racism unacceptable. Are you suggesting that some racism is acceptable but anti-Semitism is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:39 AM

Tim Loughton MP, Acting Chair of the Committee, said:

"It is symbolic of the importance of this deeply felt issue that, despite the contentious, political nature of much of the debate, this report — which does not pull its punches — was agreed unanimously and without division by the Committee's Members, across the parties.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/antisemitism-report-published-16-17/

Membership - Home Affairs Committee
Yvette Cooper MP was elected as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee on Wednesday 19 October 2016.

The remaining members of the Committee were formally appointed on 8 July 2015, except Naz Shah and Chuka Umunna who were appointed on 26 October 2015.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:17 AM


Astonishing, the professor is even denying the contents of one of his own posts.

I am not denying the content of the report quoted in my post.
If you look at the post you will see that it was about something else.
Why not reproduce it Rag?

Jim,
"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue" a"
Recognises the seriousness of the charges having been made.

No. The "issue" was and is Labour anti-Semitism.
You are misquoting, not me. Read the original.

Were these charges confirmed by a properly carried out enquiry?

Yes, By the Home Affairs Select Committee Report, and Chakrabarti stated that her report acknowledges that Labour has a serious problem with anti-Semitism.

Shah did not work on the report, but as a member of the committee she endorsed its findings.
However, that means nothing because she is a consummate liar who will say anything for political advantage, according to you!

But, Keith, you said THREE Labour, didn't you?
Yes. There were and are 3 Labour MPs on the committee.
There were 6 Tories, but now only 5.
There is also 1 SNP member.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 04:15 AM

"Jim who was accused of anything in "any court"? - Answer: Nobody."
It was merely an analogy to see how you stand on natural justice
You fail totally - you always have - it really is not your thing
For something to be proven, you make an accusation - you provide full evidence and the rest of us decides whether it is convincing.
You haven't and it isn't.
To date, what we know about these accusations is that they are totally without precedence in the Labour Party, they started to appear within weeks of Labour restating its support for B.D.S at a time when the Labour was embroiled in a leadership battle
The only "antisemitism" to have surfaced is the NEW ANTISEMITISM - described by the committee as "new racism" which also has not been specified, but is almost certainly the "criticism of Israel that has been demanded by the Israeli Justice Minister.
Most of the accusers have been found to have direct links to the Israeli propaganda machine - others were participants in the "oust Corbyn" campaign - many all are both.
Until someone produces enough actual examples of real antisemitism to make a case, all the accusations in the world - hill of beans and all that.   
They are unproven and extremely unlikely accusations - nothing more.
Now - tell me again - what are these cases of antisemitism, who committed them and how many where they - whoops, sorry - you haven't told us yet, have you NOR WILL YOU, BECAUSE THEY ARE FIGMENTS OF THE ISRAELI MACHINE'S PROPAGANDA TO PREVENT B.D.S. - THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Oct 16 - 03:16 AM

Jim who was accused of anything in "any court"? - Answer: Nobody.

The normal course of events is as follows:

1. An "offence" is alleged and reported
2. The matter is investigated
3. Substance in the allegation is either found or it is not found
4. The matter is taken further and the guilty punished

As far as the make up of committees goes I find it rather strange that Steve Shaw says that a Committee investigating the behaviour of Labour Party members that is 100% made up of Labour Party members is less biased than a Parliamentary Committee investigating the same thing that is made up on Members of a number of different political parties.

The thing that Steve Shaw denies however is that both Committees found that there was a problem with "anti-Semitism" within the Labour Party that required to be addressed. Two "Inquiries" commissioned by the Labour Party also found the same but went on to add that that "anti-Semitism" was not endemic or institutionalised - that does not mean in anyway to say that it isn't there as Shaw and Carroll attempt to claim.

The unbiased Labour NEC ordered that everything be kept secret, the names of those accused, what they were accused of and the results of any investigations made into those instances.

On the Shami Chakrabarti Inquiry which was supposed to have been an independent Inquiry. How on earth could it have been independent if the first thing the person conducting the Inquiry does is to join the Labour Party? The next thing to happen in this lady's career is that after literally weeks as a member of the Labour Party she finds herself elevated to the House of Lords and subsequently is given a Shadow Cabinet Job.

What we do know is as follows:
1. Over 50 members of the Labour Party were suspended - names of about half a dozen leaked, some of whom still remain suspended.
2. At least four Constituency Labour Party Committees are still currently suspended over allegations made against them.
3. Baroness Royall's Inquiry detailed 11 recommendations that required urgent and immediate action by Labour's NEC
4. The newly created Baroness Chakrabarti's Inquiry detailed 7 recommendations, among them was the recommendation that no-one should be banned for life from the Labour Party irrespective of what they had said. That the date of submission of her report would create a watershed after which no instance predating the submission of the report would be investigated by Labour's NEC.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 06:21 PM

Cor, I must be mad. I've just looked up who was there at the select committee meeting that "unanimously" approved the report. Here ya go:

Formal Minutes

Thursday 13 October 2016

Members present:

James Berry

Mr David Burrowes

Nusrat Ghani

Mr Ranil Jayawardena

Tim Loughton

Mr Chuka Umunna

Mr David Winnick

Tim Loughton was called to the chair.

Draft Report (Antisemitism in the UK), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 131 read and agreed to.

Annex agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Tenth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

*****

Why, Keith, only seven out of the ten members you claimed! Only two of them Labour, not the three you claimed! And, strike me down, no mention of Naz Shah! Dear me, she wasn't there after all! Better review your posts, Keith. Yes indeedie, you've had another Wheatcroft moment!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 04:54 PM

So, Keith, Naz Shah, one of your Labour Three on the committee, took no part. Did she vote? Put her name to the report? Yes or no, Keith? If she took no part in producing the report and didn't vote, then it wasn't a unanimous vote of the WHOLE committee then, was it, Keith? It was a unanimous vote of six Tories plus one SNP plus TWO Labour (both anti-Corbynistas, lest we forget). But, Keith, you said THREE Labour, didn't you? Can you clear this up? Were you having another Wheatcroft moment (yet again), or do you actually know that Naz had a vote? Cards on the table here - I don't know the answer to that. But I can probably find out. If I can be arsed. I'm really trying to be fair here. If you can prove that she voted for the report, so that THREE Labour members voted for it, I promise I'll never mention the thing again.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 03:44 PM

"The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue" a"
Recognises the seriousness of the charges having been made.
None of these charges have been confirmed by enquiry
Not much scope for misquote there Jim!2 Dosn't stop you from misinterpreting it
Were these charges confirmed by a properly carried out enquiry?
You can carry out this for as long as you like but until you describe this antisemitism it remains unproven
IF YOU HAVE A SHRED OF HONESTY AND DECENCY IN YOU, ANSWER THIS - IF YOU ACCUSED SOMEONE OF A CRIME IN ANY COURT IN BRITAIN BUT REFUSED TO DESCRIBE THAT CRIME - HOW WOULD ANY JURY REACT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 03:13 PM

Astonishing, the professor is even denying the contents of one of his own posts.

Not too surprised really.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:38 PM

Steve,
Now tell me, Keith: are you saying that Naz Shah, whilst not having worked on the report but still a member of the committee, was party to that unanimous verdict

No. She did not work on the report, but she did remain a member of the committee and they unanimously endorsed the report.

Of course you can't name them. But you can throw smears around just the same

I can not name them, but the Party leadership can and I see no reason to assume they are all lying about it.
Your case does not stand unless the whole Party leadership are lying, and that is ridiculous.

Why should anyone believe you over them Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:32 PM

Jim,
"I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem."
No they haven't - you are lying.

No. You are. and here are the quotes to prove it.

Labour List, " anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. The entire NEC recognises the seriousness of this issue" and "The NEC are appalled by recent cases of anti-Semitic abuse. "

Not much scope for misquote there Jim!

Daily Mirror,
"Mr Khan has vowed to spearhead a drive to stop the party being anti-semitic,"

Quite unequivocal Jim!

Chakrabarti told a Ch4 News presenter that her report acknowledged that Labour had a serious problem with anti semitism

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM

You should be, and indeed are, sorry, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM

Of course you can't name them. But you can throw smears around just the same. Now tell me, Keith: are you saying that Naz Shah, whilst not having worked on the report but still a member of the committee, was party to that unanimous verdict? That's what you're saying, it appears. You did say three Labour, remember? Prove that she was. I haven't heard. Clearly you have. So out with it.

And a report by a Tory-dominated committee plus two anti-Corbynistas examining an issue in a left-wing party that every member who worked on that report would love to see undermined is not "hard evidence." It's a put-up job if ever I saw one. Gosh, how you admire the integrity of politicians. When it suits you. And I don't care who you believe over me. I'm here and they're not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 02:04 PM

Steve,
Shah did not take part.
As I said, Shah did not work on the report, but remained on the committee which unanimously endorsed the report.

I want solid evidence and I want those "Labour activists" you refer to named.

A Parliamentary Select Committee Report is hard evidence Steve.
I do not know the names of the activists, but the NEC and all those impeccable and prominent members do, and it is ridiculous to suggest they are all lying Steve.
I believe them over you. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 01:53 PM

Your arguments are a mass of contradictions.
"The committee found that there was a serious problem within Labour."
The enquiry didn't and the committee talked about "new antisemitism" which is th Israeli ministers "all criticism of Israel is antisemitic" - if it isn't, what is it.
"I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem."
No they haven't - you are lying.
Nowhere, appartt from the accusations, has anybody hints at a serious problem - The NEC hasn't Chakrabatti hasn't - you are lying
"Shah did not work on the report,"
Shah was barred from making a statement on the report - she was not allowed to speak in her own defence - you've had this.
jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 11:34 AM

"I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem."
No Keith - you have deliberately misquoted them in your desperation to make the Labour Party guilty of something that is totally alien to their philosophy.
The took th matter seriously - they carried out investigations and they found no major problem
Haven't you realised what an unpleasant and stupid person you make yourself by lying in public.
you have lied about this consistently and still you are unable to describe the antisemitism you claim is a problem - utterly inane.
You lie about statements made by Israeli ministers when they are put up for you.
You lie by by anticlimactically claiming that the Jewish politicians deliberately refused to describe the "antisemitism" for the sake of the party.
You whole approach is a semblance of lies.
Even your two mates have stood clear of your lies because they are so blatant
If there was a serious problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party, we would know exactly what form it takes - this thing has dragged on since September last year and no evidence has been produced.
This started immediately following Corbyn's declaration of support for B.D.S.
Last July, a march supporting Israel organised by The Sussex 'Friends of Israel', in London, where the speakers where, Matthew Offord, a Conservative lawmaker, and Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, was openly attended by members of the Fascist 'Jewish Defence League' - that is how far to the right the anti- B.D.S. propaganda movement has gone.
You want to prove antisemitism - show us it - otherwise, you are making it up, as you have everything else
I really don't mind how much you claim this, it's always an opportunity to find SOMETHING NEW
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:57 AM

Shah did not take part. TWO Labour, Keith. Intimidatory behaviour and homophobic hate speech are against the law. I don't want hearsay. I want solid evidence and I want those "Labour activists" you refer to named. Tell me when they were convicted. Shouldn't be too difficult as you do seem so certain. Names. Piss or get off the pot.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:51 AM

Steve,
"Labour's governing body has upheld complaints by MP Angela Eagle that she and her staff were subjected to homophobic abuse and intimidation by local party activists.

The report that Keith is inevitably keen on was drawn up by a bunch of Tories,

It was an all party Parliamentary committee of 6 Tories, 3 Labour and an SNP.
Shah did not work on the report, but remained on the committee which unanimously supported the report.

Steve would have us believe that they are all lying!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 10:33 AM

Jim,
You've sad this before and it simply is not true - nowhere has anybody recognised a serious problem;

I have quoted the entire NEC, Sadiq Khan,Chakrabarti and numerous other prominent Labour members saying it was a serious problem.

"Corbyn claimed the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and also that the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties."

The committee found that there was a serious problem within Labour.

Rag,

Your racism aside, please explain why anti-Semitism should be considered different to any other form of racism.

Unlike you, I do not think it should be considered different, and unlike you I have never said that it should be considered different.

as per your earlier post,
What post Rag? You have yet to produce it.

YOU quoted the report, YOU used the report to support YOUR take on this issue.

No. I used it to support my take on an entirely different issue.
Read the post.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 06:19 AM

One case, Teribus, perpetrated by a nutter. I can't even find out whether he was a member or not. An idiot sending an email who wasn't even trying to be anonymous. This is supposed to be a tidal wave of misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism coming from the ranks of Corbyn supporters in the party, you know, 25,000 vile tweets, etc., that sort of stuff. Even the infamous brick through the window, which has led to a gleeful flood of anti-Labour nonsense for months, cannot be shown by a single shred of evidence to be linked to anyone in the party. All behind-the-hand chitchat. The party contains liars all right, from the anti-Corbyn brigade. Liars such as Ruth Smeeth and a nice little cabal in a meeting in Wallasey who made up a Eagle homophobia yarn. They are the real rotten apples just as much as the tiny minority who misuse social media. As I said, if anyone has evidence of who has perpetrated criminal acts, either vandalism or hate speech, they have recourse to the law. I note that the tsunami of smears has not yet been backed up by a tsunami of court cases. I predict with confidence that it won't be.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 04:06 AM

Whatever the right and wrongs of the argy-bargy leading up the re-election of Corbyn, the point remains - antisemitism was used as an accusation during that election campaign - by the right, who would have used wife-beating as an accusation if they thought they could have got away with it, and by the Israeli regime supporters who launched the "antisemitism" attack the minute Corbyn announced his support for B.D.S.
No evidence whatever of a significant attack on the Jewish People by Labour party members has surfaced - not in the slightest.
That, if nothing else, has been one of Corbyn's triumphs of leadership - don't bow down to the bullies.
He did everything a leader should have done to protect both the Jewish members of Labour and also those who were wrongly accused.
The danger of all this - 'The Crying Wolf' syndrome, which has been pointed out by a large number of Jews, including those from Israel, is quite likely to be one of the outcomes of all this.
Describing condemnation of Israel as "antisemitism" opens the door to genuine Antitsemites to renew their hatred of Jews, using Israeli behaviour as an excuse - "if the Israelis say their actions are "Jewish", then why can't we?"
Europe appears to be swinging to the right - LePen is waiting in the wings in France, and several Ultra-Right groups elsewhere are using the refugee crisis and Brexit to get a toe-hold in their countries.
The historically traditional target of The Right, "The Yids" are not going to be overlooked in all this.
Britain is obviously very much a part of this swing to the right - immediately obvious in the large increase in racist incidents immediately following Brexit.
I watched in horror last night as a Question Time audience of Harlepudlians applauded enthusiastically for a Donald Trump victory - won't be too long before that lot are back to HANGING MONKEYS
God help us all!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Oct 16 - 01:42 AM

"A prosecution or two arising from their complaints would add credence to their cases." - Steve Shaw - 20 Oct 16 - 06:13 PM

Already happened in the case of death threats made to Angela Eagles.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 06:13 PM

Well both Ruth Smeeth and Angela Eagle have complained of twitter abuse on a large scale and Angela Eagle has complained about an act of vandalism. I don't doubt for a second that their allegations have substance. I also don't doubt that SOME of this offensive behaviour has come from a few of the 600,000 Labour Party members. They are seriously letting the side down. Just a couple of points. If either of these women have evidence of criminality, they have full recourse to the rule of law. That's up to them. A prosecution or two arising from their complaints would add credence to their cases. I'm waiting. Second, I read a piece somewhere today that alleged that one woman in six in the UK has been sexually abused. A shocking revelation which I have no reason to contradict. That does not mean that the whole of the male population of the UK is in disrepute. Similarly, a few rotten apples does not mean that the whole 600,000 are scum. I don't think for a second that anything like all of Smeeth's 25,000 received offensive tweets came from bona fide Labour members. An awful lot of people are extremely keen to undermine Labour and Corbyn, and principles can be the first casualty of that. So get real, chaps. And get honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 05:47 PM

The report that Keith is inevitably keen on was drawn up by a bunch of Tories, aided by two passionate anti-Corbyn Labour MPs. That's yer context, folks. Now tell us, Keith. have you and Woodcock asked Naz to draw up your preferred definition of antisemitism yet? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 03:46 PM

PS Merely saying that this quote is from a report you read is not acceptable.

YOU quoted the report, YOU used the report to support YOUR take on this issue.

YOU justify the statement. Why should anti-Semitism be considered in any other way than any other racism.

Can YOU do this ......................?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 03:04 PM

Racism in any way, shape or form is not acceptable. Many people accept this as a truth,

You professor as a noted racist probably don't acknowledge this.

Your racism aside, please explain why anti-Semitism should be considered different to any other form of racism.

You have yet to explain, as per your earlier post, why anti-Semitism should be considered in a different light.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:58 PM

Can't speak for Steve (na't see any coments by Steve here), but when have I defended what happens to Angela Eagle - Angels Eagle for that matter.
Will you please stop adding to your own mounting record of dishonesty Keith - you are now well beyond a joke.
Any word on that Jewish plot yet?
"Is it not sufficient that the entire NEC, the leadership and Corbyn himself to know what they are and recognise them as anti-Semitic?"
You've sad this before and it simply is not true - nowhere has anybody recognised a serious problem; you are blatantly lying acout what he said in th face of his statement to the Parliamentary committee.
"Corbyn claimed the committee heard evidence that 75% of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and also that the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties."
How long is it since you had any self respect for yourself?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:20 PM

Say good-night, Professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 02:07 PM

An NEC sub-committee has upheld the complaints of abuse from Angels Eagle, as previously the entire NEC did incidents of anti-Semitism within Labour.

BBC,
"A meeting of an NEC sub-committee on Tuesday considered a confidential report and upheld her complaint of abuse and intimidation by Labour activists in Wallasey."

She said, "The report by national party officers comprehensively explains what happened earlier this year and the NEC has accepted the findings.
"I am grateful that Jeremy took the unusual step of both attending and speaking in the meeting and that he expressed sincere sympathy for both me and for my staff."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37702135

So Steve and Jim have been proved wtrong about that abuse too.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 01:55 PM

Jim,

Unspecified accusations have been made - before we can decide whether they are justified we have to know what they are.

Is it not sufficient that the entire NEC, the leadership and Corbyn himself to know what they are and recognise them as anti-Semitic?
It is enough for me Jim.

My previous post was in response to Rag,
"For crying out loud what does this mean: "and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"

and Kevin,
"... his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism"
I can't follow your meaning here Keith. It seems to me that here they are suggesting precisely what you say they do not suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 01:46 PM

Kevin and Rag,
The quote is from paragraph 20 of this Parliamentary report on anti-semitism in UK, not me.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/13610.htm

The previous sentences read, "While the Labour Leader has a proud record of campaigning against many types of racism, based on the evidence we have received, we are not persuaded that he fully appreciates the distinct nature of post-Second World War antisemitism. Unlike other forms of racism, antisemitic abuse often paints the victim as a malign and controlling force rather than as an inferior object of derision, making it perfectly possible for an 'anti-racist campaigner' to express antisemitic views."